DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

If it works for you, go for it.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Nah, I was actually agreeing with you and Jerry. Jpeg-only really think that their approach results in superior images, which as you and I and Jerry and just about anyone who has explored the capabilities of their digital cameras has come to realize, jpeg has limited application, and it is more about convenience than quality. Kinda like the old Polaroids. I actually had a 4x5 Polaroid back and used it to check composition, lighting and focus. And it was helpful if the creative director was in my studio to be able to show him/her a B&W of the setting before committing to film.

Also, it was early and I hadn't had my second cup of coffee. . . Sorry I gave you the wrong impression.

traderjohn Loc: New York City

That's a shame. Still, plenty to see on your next visit.

DoyleY Loc: Worland, Wyoming

I accidently turned off raw on my D7200 by pressing the wrong button to change the ISO. It's not that hard to do as a Nikon has an image quality button adjacent to the ISO button.

Paulco2 Loc: Gettysburg PA

While I normally shoot in RAW, there are times when JPG images are more appropriate for my purpose. I think than any format has value as long as the photographer has considered the end use of the picture and any other factors (such as time constraints) that might make one format better than another. That said, RAW is what I normally shoot unless another format better suites my needs.

johnst1001a Loc: West Chester, Ohio

i just leave the camera on raw, even with dual cards. for a while I would record both, raw on one and jpeg on the other. I found never i never used the jpeg files. file storage is so cheap these days. but i do record raw to both jus in case i have a card issue which I did on my Alaska trip.

Peterfiore Loc: Where DR goes south

I have shot Jpeg. only, not meaning to. I was able to process them almost like Raw in Photoshop Bridge.

Much more control than basic controls that Photoshop offers for Jpegs.

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

One reason I switched to shooting RAW was that I started shooting pretty much entire all the cars in the trains passing through town. I do this not so much for my use but for those who maybe interested what railroading today looks like to those interested years from now. So I might shoot a few hundred shots in a couple hours trackside, yet I may only choose to process a few of those shots in post for my own use now.

The rest I can add to my library collection and PP them later or in a batch mode. My thought is that by having them in RAW format I preserve the most image data for the future. There may be much better tools to PP them in years ahead after I am gone. The railroad scene is constantly changing and evolving. Cars or locomotives that were fairly common just a few years ago may be retired and scrapped today. My desire is that one day my images can be donated to a railroad historical society for future generations to enjoy. I know that there were shooters who were taking B&W photos 70 or 80 years ago that some of us cherish today.

Maybe some would consider me crazy. That’s OK. It’s in many ways the same when I shoot a drag race. I might shoot 500 to several thousand shots in a day or two. I will only usually process a fraction of them immediately. My son used to think I was nuts spending so much time shooting at the races. But once a few years have passed and several of his racing pals are no longer with us he and others are grateful that I can reach into my collection and pull back memories for them to relive.

I have a lot of motocross shots that I took 12-15 years ago that I wish I had in RAW. I can do some improvements to the JPEGs but it is much more limited. Hopefully I have lived and learned...

chrisg-optical Loc: New York, NY

You have much more latitude and color depth with raw - I shoot RAW in slot 1 and JPG in slot 2.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Well, that's one way of looking at it.

Actually, any of my cameras that can shoot raw are set to shoot raw all the time, so I don't have to rely on my memory.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Most of the photographers on this thread who are denegrating JPG use PS and LR, which are not good for JPG editing, and that is the problem. If they were to use a different editor, perhaps Affinity, for example, they would need to eat their words.

Quixdraw Loc: x

A good photo is a good photo - haven't seen a lot of images by the most harsh RAW advocates that I'd recognize as such or find remarkable in any way. Prove the premise!

pecohen Loc: Central Maine

My own thoughts on the RAW vs JPEG wars is that while RAW is best for me it probably is not for everyone.
I like to do my own processing. To me that is at least half of the fun of photography and RAW gives me much more freedom for processing than JPEG does. Do my images always come out better than if I had just captured a JPEG image and let it go at that? Probably not always but certainly most of the time but that is my opinion and other people may think otherwise ("better" is such a matter of personal preference). But I shaped the image into what I prefer so sure, I tend to like the result.

But some people just hate the idea of sitting at a computer - to do anything. Perhaps it is fear of the computer but it may just as well be a desire to be outside and shooting pictures is something to do while outside. Some people enjoy the challenge of getting their camera to do all of the job perfectly (as they perceive perfection). And some want immediate access to their photos so they can put them up on a web site or deliver them to a customer. JPEG is surely the right choice for some people and probably for everyone at least some of the time.

Carusoswi

Delderby:
I have not used Affinity, but wonder why you find it better than LR/PS. Perhaps you share some specifics.
I only shoot RAW because it is safer for me to do so, and I love post processing. Once in a while, I will shoot a flash exposure and forget to turn on the flash. In most cases, I can safe the shot in post.
My camera has a 'preview' setting that shows the histogram and a small view of the embedded jpeg which which includes flashing over/under exposure warnings. No matter if the sun makes it hard to evaluate the image on the screen, I know that if there are over/under exposure warnings, I have a raw file that will allow me to post process shadows and/or highlights in post to my tastes.

OTOH, if one does not care for post processing, then, perhaps JPEG is the way to go. Many cameras allow you to shoot both formats simultaneously. Also, if you wanted, you could shoot raw (to be safe) and batch convert (actually extract) the JPEG that is embedded in the RAW file to eliminate the need to post process the shots that you find are acceptable while still maintaining optimal flexibility to make adjustments to shots that are less than acceptable.

We all have plenty of options with our cameras, so, I say use whatever file format suits you.

Caruso

cmcaroffino Loc: Sebring, FL

For me it depends on what the subject matter is. Sometimes a jpeg is all I need and I run them through Perfectly Clear which usually improves them enough to meet my needs. But for landscapes especially I enjoy processing raw images so I don't shot one format exclusively but whichever meets my needs at the time.